She continues to whip the race/gender issue. Now she is bragging how much "white" support she has.
REALLY? Since whites are the majority in most states then why is she behind? Because they are staying home...they don't want to vote for her...therefore those that do come out vote for Obama.

Why is she just pulling barely even in the so called states she is supposed to do so well in?

I found it interesting today that McCain is running adds against Obama already, using what was dug up by the Clintons during the current marathon Democratic wee wee contest.

When she touts she is more electable than McCain what does that mean when she can't beat Obama?

When will she put down the ME FIRST mantle and pack up and git so the real contenders can get on with it.

Anyway.........she demonstrates the epitome of Clinton first, party second and other Americas in the pile some where.

BTK

Two very dear liberal/Democrat friends of mine are absolutely convinced that McCain will the next president. They believe the primary has all but killed the chances for the party.

Jan, I'm with your friends and it scares me to no end. I do believe McCain will simply carry on Bush's policies and probably expand them to include invading Iran. I hate to imagine what his temper will do in a tense situation with another foreign dignatary. I hope your friends and I are wrong, but I do think Hillary shot herself in the foot with a little (?) bit of help from her husband. And, sadly, I don't think Obama has a chance given the bigotry in this country and the slanderous emails and the like going around about him. Add that to the fact that he really is relatively new to the national political scene and I can't see him winning.

Originally Posted by redwitch

.........And, sadly, I don't think Obama has a chance given the bigotry in this country and the slanderous emails and the like going around about him. Add that to the fact that he really is relatively new to the national political scene and I can't see him winning.

Sorry, but if Sen. Obama does not win the general election, "bigotry" has nothing to do with it. "Being new to the national political scene" is very true, and 1/2-term senators with no other significant experience under their belts have a high mountain to climb to demonstrate any potential competency to be POTUS and fulfill all of the responsibilities that job entails.

Is there racial/gender/ethnic/age/education/religious/regional/"looks" bias in this country? Sure there is, as there is everywhere on Planet Earth. However, in this day-and-age, especially with all that has happened civil-rights wise since the '50s (pushing 60 years now!) Sen. Obama's skin pigmentation isn't an issue of note. As an example, if Gen. Colin Powell ran today, there would be a stampede to the polls on election day in his favor.

Fringe elements (which always seem to get their unbalanced share of press coverage) may attack Sen. Obama for his racial background, as other fringes will attack Sen. McCain and refer to him as a Papist. Stupid is as stupid does, and "stupid" fringes tend to balance each other out.

If the Democratic Party's candidate comes out second, and the party plays a post-election "race card" excuse, allegation or alibi, that action will alienate people against the DNC for a long time - as such a post-election action would be an insult to all of us.

This election is starting to boil down to whether the majority wants: 1) a grandfatherly type who emits an image of relaxed control (despite private temper explosions) and a soothing "Don't worry, I've got it covered" attitude; or 2) an energetic firebrand who says top-to-bottom "change" is necessary now or the country will self-dissolve. All of the other issues will fall second to the "radical change" or "take it slow" persona.

Whether either candidate truly matches the the public persona being hawked, how good the advertising is and whether folk want to investigate beyond the billboard image will answer that.

Did not George W. Bush get elected in 2000 on the change in Washington kind of rhetoric?? http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush.htm

Originally Posted by Taltarzac

Did not George W. Bush get elected in 2000 on the change in Washington kind of rhetoric?? http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush.htm

...And it shows that it is possible to sell "change" successfully. I believe Pres. Clinton, Kennedy, Nixon and Carter did the same, as have many others in history.

Yet, strangely, no matter how many pitch "change" as their rallying cry - it never really happens.....

Steve, didn't mean bigotry of the man's color, meant bigotry of his Muslim heritage. The fact that he is not Muslim is irrelevant to many. Even here, where I think people are relatively intelligent, statements have been made that electing Obama means opening the doors to the Islam fanatics and handing over America.

There is a very strong bigotry (and fear) of Muslims today. People can't seem to differentiate between the religion and the caliphs and despots who have perverted that religion into an obscenity that allows the killing and maiming of innocents (something diametrically opposed to the writings of Muhammed in the K'oran).

For a few, his race is an issue but not enough to defeat him. The Muslim background is a far greater issue and, whether we like it or not, religion can be as smack of bigotry as race does.

Originally Posted by redwitch

Steve, didn't mean bigotry of the man's color, meant bigotry of his Muslim heritage. The fact that he is not Muslim is irrelevant to many. Even here, where I think people are relatively intelligent, statements have been made that electing Obama means opening the doors to the Islam fanatics and handing over America.

There is a very strong bigotry (and fear) of Muslims today. People can't seem to differentiate between the religion and the caliphs and despots who have perverted that religion into an obscenity that allows the killing and maiming of innocents (something diametrically opposed to the writings of Muhammed in the K'oran).

For a few, his race is an issue but not enough to defeat him. The Muslim background is a far greater issue and, whether we like it or not, religion can be as smack of bigotry as race does.

Sen. Obama's "Muslim background" will get put to bed as soon as the two-person campaign gets underway. Sen. McCain has publically chastised his supporters who have stressed Sen Obama's middle name, and say what you want about Sen. McCain, he himself will turn it into a non-issue.

Sen. Obama appears to be trying to do the same with his supporters who are hawking the "age card." Hopefully, that will continue to occur.

If these gentlemen indeed mimic the Lincoln-Douglas type of open debates during the campaign, then perhaps the real-meat issues will be discussed to include their respectives positions. Wouldn't that be unique - neither candidate being able to post-election alibi that personal demographic was scandalized by the other, and the election centered on position versus profile.

Sounds much too civilized. .... we can only hope.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Sen. Obama's "Muslim background" will get put to bed as soon as the two-person campaign gets underway. Sen. McCain has publically chastised his supporters who have stressed Sen Obama's middle name, and say what you want about Sen. McCain, he himself will turn it into a non-issue.

Sen. Obama appears to be trying to do the same with his supporters who are hawking the "age card." Hopefully, that will continue to occur.

If these gentlemen indeed mimic the Lincoln-Douglas type of open debates during the campaign, then perhaps the real-meat issues will be discussed to include their respectives positions. Wouldn't that be unique - neither candidate being able to post-election alibi that personal demographic was scandalized by the other, and the election centered on position versus profile.

Steve, as much as most would like to see a Lincoln-Douglas issues debate as the center of the campaign, even when we reach the 1-on-1 stage, it ain't gonna happen. As long as there are 527s, there will be slime. These creations are not and cannot by law be coordinated with and controlled by the candidates campaign. And there will be slime as long as we have the Daily Kos and Huffington Post on the left and nut job bible pounders on the right. There will be slime as long as we have right wing talk shows like Savage and Cunningham and ultraliberal television MSNBC and Keith Olbermann. Any logical person recognizes the liberal slant of the "main stream media" and this is something with which one can live. But much of it has given up any pretense of objectivity a la the New York Times. And look for the deluge of mainstream televising shows and TV movies that will have "liberal" messages in October. And this will all be beyond the control of the candidates.

Originally Posted by Muncle

Steve, as much as most would like to see a Lincoln-Douglas issues debate as the center of the campaign, even when we reach the 1-on-1 stage, it ain't gonna happen. As long as there are 527s, there will be slime. ....... And this will all be beyond the control of the candidates.

I know it's wistful dreaming on my part that civility may actually occur, but you are right that the muck-merchants will provide the pond scum that the media demands so it can sell commercial time/space. It is sad when "Freedom of Speech" is prostituted into "Listen to me, I can lie, swear, debase and slander." Sadder still is when people encourage the practice.